Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- University of Maine School of Law (14)
- Georgia State University College of Law (10)
- Brooklyn Law School (4)
- Mercer University School of Law (4)
- Northwestern Pritzker School of Law (4)
-
- St. Mary's University (4)
- Fordham Law School (3)
- Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School (3)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (3)
- University of Michigan Law School (3)
- Pace University (2)
- University of Colorado Law School (2)
- West Virginia University (2)
- American University Washington College of Law (1)
- Cleveland State University (1)
- DePaul University (1)
- Penn State Dickinson Law (1)
- Roger Williams University (1)
- SJ Quinney College of Law, University of Utah (1)
- San Jose State University (1)
- Seattle University School of Law (1)
- Southern Methodist University (1)
- The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law (1)
- University of Baltimore Law (1)
- University of Florida Levin College of Law (1)
- University of Miami Law School (1)
- University of Oklahoma College of Law (1)
- University of South Carolina (1)
- University of South Florida (1)
- University of Washington School of Law (1)
- Keyword
-
- Evidence (19)
- Law Review (7)
- Forensic Evidence (6)
- Daubert (5)
- 702 (4)
-
- DOJ (4)
- Ethnography (4)
- Expert testimony (4)
- Federal Rules of Evidence (4)
- Forensic Science (4)
- Forensic evidence (4)
- Privilege (4)
- Algorithms (3)
- Author (3)
- Conference (3)
- Criminal Law (3)
- Criminal procedure (3)
- Ethics (3)
- Evidence law (3)
- Fourth amendment (3)
- PCAST (3)
- Rape (3)
- Report (3)
- Sentencing (3)
- Sixth Amendment (3)
- Trials (3)
- Validity (3)
- Abuse (2)
- Attorney-client privilege (2)
- Confrontation Clause (2)
- Publication
-
- Maine Law Review (14)
- Georgia State University Law Review (10)
- Mercer Law Review (4)
- Brooklyn Law Review (3)
- Fordham Law Review Online (3)
-
- Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review (3)
- Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy (3)
- St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics (3)
- Touro Law Review (3)
- Michigan Law Review (2)
- Pace Law Review (2)
- University of Colorado Law Review (2)
- American University Law Review (1)
- Catholic University Law Review (1)
- DePaul Journal for Social Justice (1)
- Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present) (1)
- Florida Law Review (1)
- Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal (1)
- Journal of Air Law and Commerce (1)
- Journal of Law and Policy (1)
- Michigan Journal of Race and Law (1)
- Northwestern University Law Review (1)
- Oklahoma Law Review (1)
- Roger Williams University Law Review (1)
- Seattle University Law Review (1)
- South Carolina Law Review (1)
- St. Mary's Law Journal (1)
- The Downtown Review (1)
- Themis: Research Journal of Justice Studies and Forensic Science (1)
- University of Baltimore Law Review (1)
Articles 61 - 77 of 77
Full-Text Articles in Law
Innovating Criminal Justice, Natalie Ram
Innovating Criminal Justice, Natalie Ram
Northwestern University Law Review
From secret stingray devices that can pinpoint a suspect’s location, to advanced forensic DNA-analysis tools, to recidivism risk statistic software—the use of privately developed criminal justice technologies is growing. So too is a concomitant pattern of trade secret assertion surrounding these technologies. This Article charts the role of private law secrecy in shielding criminal justice activities, demonstrating that such secrecy is pervasive, problematic, and ultimately unnecessary for the production of well-designed criminal justice tools.
This Article makes three contributions to the existing literature. First, the Article establishes that trade secrecy now permeates American criminal justice, shielding privately developed criminal justice …
Clearly Unconvincing: How Heightened Evidentiary Standards In Judicial Bypass Hearings Create An Undue Burden Under Whole Woman's Health, Haley Hawkins
American University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Buck V. Davis: Anti-Discriminatory Principles In Habeas Corpus Cases, Daniella Rubin
Buck V. Davis: Anti-Discriminatory Principles In Habeas Corpus Cases, Daniella Rubin
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
No abstract provided.
Hearsay And Abuse: Where Past Is Present, The Hon. Andrea M. Leahy, Jared A. Mclain Esq.
Hearsay And Abuse: Where Past Is Present, The Hon. Andrea M. Leahy, Jared A. Mclain Esq.
University of Baltimore Law Review
No abstract provided.
The "Primary Purpose" Of Children's Advocacy Centers: How Ohio V. Clark Revolutionized Children's Hearsay, Andrew Lentz
The "Primary Purpose" Of Children's Advocacy Centers: How Ohio V. Clark Revolutionized Children's Hearsay, Andrew Lentz
Roger Williams University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Fleeing The Rat’S Nest: Title Vii Jurisprudence After Ortiz V. Werner Enterprises, Inc., Zachary J. Strongin
Fleeing The Rat’S Nest: Title Vii Jurisprudence After Ortiz V. Werner Enterprises, Inc., Zachary J. Strongin
Brooklyn Law Review
In 2016, the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion that may be a harbinger for an important shift in the federal judiciary’s long-standing employment discrimination jurisprudence. In Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Judge Easterbrook reiterated the frustration with the existing “rat’s nest” of tests and standards used in Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims. The note contains two overarching arguments. First, the Supreme Court’s employment discrimination and “rat’s nest” of tests and standards has led to an untenable situation in which federal district courts apply different standards at different stages of litigations. This in turn has caused confusion amongst the various federal …
Why Not Believe Women In Sexual Assault Cases?: An Engagement With Professors Tuerkheimer, Colb, And Many Others, Dan Subotnik
Why Not Believe Women In Sexual Assault Cases?: An Engagement With Professors Tuerkheimer, Colb, And Many Others, Dan Subotnik
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Whether The Bright-Line Cut-Off Rule And The Adversarial Expert Explanation Of Adaptive Functioning Exacerbates Capital Juror Comprehension Of The Intellectual Disability, Leona Deborah Jochnowitz
Whether The Bright-Line Cut-Off Rule And The Adversarial Expert Explanation Of Adaptive Functioning Exacerbates Capital Juror Comprehension Of The Intellectual Disability, Leona Deborah Jochnowitz
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
When Discretion To Record Becomes Assertive: Body Camera Footage As Hearsay, Natalie P. Pike
When Discretion To Record Becomes Assertive: Body Camera Footage As Hearsay, Natalie P. Pike
Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law
As police body camera footage pervades courtrooms across the country as evidence in criminal trials, courts must reevaluate whether, and under which evidentiary frameworks, they will admit the footage to prove that what the footage depicts is true. This Note analyzes the frameworks under which courts have historically admitted filmic evidence: namely, through authentication and as demonstrative evidence. It concludes that body camera footage is distinct from evidence traditionally admitted through those frameworks because body camera footage is akin to an officer's assertive statement--the officer has discretion to activate and aim the body camera. Courts should therefore exclude the footage …
Fairness Over Finality: Peña-Rodriguez V. Colorado And The Right To An Impartial Jury, Katherine Brosamle
Fairness Over Finality: Peña-Rodriguez V. Colorado And The Right To An Impartial Jury, Katherine Brosamle
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
No abstract provided.
Waiver, Work Product, And Worry: A Case For Clarifying The Waiver Doctrine In Oklahoma, Mitchell B. Bryant
Waiver, Work Product, And Worry: A Case For Clarifying The Waiver Doctrine In Oklahoma, Mitchell B. Bryant
Oklahoma Law Review
No abstract provided.
Diamonds In The Rough: A Review Of Tiffany V. Costco And A Call To Apply Daubert To The Admissibility Of Consumer Survey Evidence In Trademark Infringement Litigation, Michael J. Borger
Diamonds In The Rough: A Review Of Tiffany V. Costco And A Call To Apply Daubert To The Admissibility Of Consumer Survey Evidence In Trademark Infringement Litigation, Michael J. Borger
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Neither Limited Nor Simplified: A Proposal For Reform Of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 222(B), Michael S. Smith
Neither Limited Nor Simplified: A Proposal For Reform Of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 222(B), Michael S. Smith
Michigan Law Review
A limited and simplified discovery system should broaden access to courts, resolve disputes quickly, and expedite relief to injured parties. It should not incentivize procedural gamesmanship or increase the system’s complexity. Regrettably, Illinois’s “limited and simplified” discovery system does both. The initiation procedure for the simplified system, Rule 222(b), creates procedural traps and perverse incentives for both plaintiffs and defendants, and conflicting appellate interpretations of the Rule intensify the problem. This Note examines the flaws underlying the current simplified discovery scheme and argues for reform. It examines simplified discovery schemes in other states to recommend a new system for initiating …
A Tale Of Two Wives: 404(B) Evidence Simplified, Josiah Beamish
A Tale Of Two Wives: 404(B) Evidence Simplified, Josiah Beamish
University of Colorado Law Review
Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) is a constant source of confusion, contempt, and convoluted reasoning. Rule 404(b) prohibits evidence of an individual's prior bad acts when used to prove conformity with a character trait. No Federal Rule of Evidence generates more appellate pages. This Comment argues that there are foundational issues with a rule that generates so much dispute. That proposition becomes even more evident through examination of the murder conviction of Harold Henthorn. The government's case against Mr. Henthorn relied heavily on the introduction of evidence surrounding his first wife's death. That evidence of prior uncharged conduct-404(b) evidence-became the …
Cabining Judicial Discretion Over Forensic Evidence With A New Special Relevance Rule, Emma F.E. Shoucair
Cabining Judicial Discretion Over Forensic Evidence With A New Special Relevance Rule, Emma F.E. Shoucair
Michigan Law Review
Modern forensic evidence suffers from a number of flaws, including insufficient scientific grounding, exaggerated testimony, lack of uniform best practices, and an inefficacious standard for admission that regularly allows judges to admit scientifically unsound evidence. This Note discusses these problems, lays out the current landscape of forensic science reform, and suggests the addition of a new special relevance rule to the Federal Rules of Evidence (and similar rules in state evidence codes). This proposed rule would cabin judicial discretion to admit non-DNA forensic evidence by barring prosecutorial introduction of such evidence in criminal trials absent a competing defense expert or …
Character Flaws, Frederic Bloom
Character Flaws, Frederic Bloom
University of Colorado Law Review
Character evidence doctrine is infected by error. It is riddled with a set of pervasive mistakes and misconceptions-a group of gaffes and glitches involving Rule 404(b)'s "other purposes" (like intent, absence of accident, and plan) that might be called "character flaws." This Essay identifies and investigates those flaws through the lens of a single, sensational case: United States v. Henthorn. By itself, Henthorn is a tale worth telling-an astonishing story of danger and deceit, malice and murder. But Henthorn is more than just a stunning story. It is also an example and an opportunity, a chance to consider character flaws …
Federal Rule 26(A)(2) Expert Witness Disclosures: Strategies For Composing And Attacking Expert Disclosures, Douglas B. Bates, Chelsea R. Stanley, James L. Burt Iii
Federal Rule 26(A)(2) Expert Witness Disclosures: Strategies For Composing And Attacking Expert Disclosures, Douglas B. Bates, Chelsea R. Stanley, James L. Burt Iii
Journal of Air Law and Commerce
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(A)(2) governs disclosure of expert testimony. The rule purports to create a clear delineation between experts that must provide a written report and those that do not. The rule then outlines the disclosure requirements that must be satisfied as to each type of expert. This article focuses on the implications of Rule 26(A)(2) in practice, with an emphasis on the field of aviation litigation. The article begins by discussing the general difference between non-retained experts and retained experts and the disclosure requirements associated with each. The article then progresses into a series of practice pointers …